Our erstwhile ally Egypt has again violated the most basic civil liberties in a criminal case involving blasphemy. An Egyptian court has sentenced student Karim al-Banna, 21, to three years in jail for announcing on Facebook that he is an atheist and for insulting Islam. His own father testified against him and denounced his son for “was embracing extremist ideas against Islam.” Of course, neither Egypt nor the father view criminalizing someone’s mere speech about religion to be an “extremist idea.”
Al-Banna’s name appeared on a public listing of “known atheists” in a local newspaper and he was hounded by Muslim neighbors who called for his arrest. He went to his local police to complain and they promptly arrested him and charged him with being an atheist and insulting Islam. He is only the latest person charged with such an offense as Egypt continues to enforce its medieval blasphemy law.
As discussed in column yesterday in the Washington Post, we continue to flirt with the concept of speech crimes related to religion. For many years, I have been writing about the threat of an international blasphemy standard and the continuing rollback on free speech in the West. For recent columns, click here and here and here.
Much of this writing has focused on the effort of the Obama Administration to reach an accommodation with allies like Egypt and Pakistan to develop a standard for criminalizing anti-religious speech. We have been following the rise of anti-blasphemy laws around the world, including the increase in prosecutions in the West and the support of the Obama Administration for the prosecution of some anti-religious speech under the controversial Brandenburg standard.
These cases reflect the true purpose of blasphemy laws: to silence minority sects and religious critics in the name of a “true faith.” Fortunately the effort of Hillary Clinton and others in the Administration to reach a compromise on blasphemy failed, though there continue to be efforts to create an international standard.
This case reflects the continued commitment of allies like Egypt to deny basic rights of free speech and freedom of religion to its citizens. It is a disgraceful sentence and another embarrassment for the United States in its massive financial support of the country while condemning other nations like Iran for their extremism.
Source: Yahoo
Jill, that’s how I took your comment, too. It appeared that you were blaming religious people, but that might not have been what you meant. I agree with your later statement (and Olly’s) that it’s all about human nature.
An atheist extremist will commit violence just the same as a religious extremist.
Extremism combined with power is bad. Pogo referenced the enormous death toll of atheist extremists. And, of course, there is an enormous death toll from religious extremists.
Once extremists rise to power in a country, it inevitably predicts violence and human rights abuses.
That is, I was being completely honest in reporting on your initial statement.
Jill said:
“Pogo, you are not being an honest reporter of what I said. I clearly stated atheism is not a measure of being good or bad, only actions determine that. I ask that you represent me fairly in your posts.”
Your first comment does not in fact match that claim, however.
You clearly stated this:
It wan’t until I pointed that out did you respond:
“Atheism does
not equal being a good person…”
“You still refuse to answer a legitimate question. ”
The question is incoherent.
What is “channeling”, for example?
Given the fact Human Nature is the only common denominator for all the evil throughout history; why is there this obsession to lay responsibility elsewhere?
The two most important things to take away from the Age of Enlightenment is an understanding of the unchanging human nature and natural rights. The whole idea of the social contract is to ‘better’ secure the latter from the former.
Our human nature will conjure up an unlimited number of means to achieve its evil ends and religion is one of them; but unless we live in a theocracy, it will not be the greatest threat to our inalienable rights. That honor goes to the institution established for the very purpose of securing those rights: Government.
So, the question that should be answered by government is; how does (insert action here) better secure our inalienable rights?
Pogo, you are not being an honest reporter of what I said. I clearly stated atheism is not a measure of being good or bad, only actions determine that. I ask that you represent me fairly in your posts.
You still refuse to answer a legitimate question. Who is channeling which god on blasphemy? What if conflicting channels say that god is saying different things? Who gets decide which channel holds god’s truth? You think these are mocking questions but these are serious questions that the religious need to answer.
“Let’s just agree that atheists (being human beings) are no more blood-thirsty or deranged on average than religious people and then we can all stop being so defensive.”
Agreed.
Might want to tell Jill that, since it was her post that was first in blaming religion (or mocking it). Mine was mere response.
Good post bt!
Our unchanging human nature. Whether it walks with God or without, it’s dark side rests prepared to act.
Karen, May I suggest National Geographic issues on Egypt.
But wait. CAIR has written articles about the compatibility of Sharia Law and democracy and human rights.
I remember when some friends of mine were so happy about the Arab Spring. They thought it was going to usher in a period of democracy and freedom. I predicted it was going to be swept by extremism.
I wish I had been wrong. I’ve always wanted to see Egypt.
Oh Please Pogo.
Killers come in all flavors.
Let’s just agree that atheists (being human beings) are no more blood-thirsty or deranged on average than religious people and then we can all stop being so defensive.
It’s mostly optics when a deranged individual or group claims divine guidance as they kill and slaughter. Humans have a general tendency to do these things regardless of whether they believe in a creation myth, or sky god or whatever.
But we should also leave aside the belief that following the correct religion will magically cure our sinful nature and so on, and teach us right from wrong. Through the history of man, this has never been the case and it never will be. A lot of what passes for religious organization is tribal behavior, pure and simple.
Pogo, One of the things about being an atheist is there is no need to lie about whether someone or a group is a good or bad. Atheism does not equal being a good person, it does not equal being a bad person. These things are determined by actions alone.
I don’t have any problem with you pointing out evil done by a person or group of people who claim they are atheists. The truth is the truth.
Now how about you? Are you able to face the truth that there are truly evil religious believers? Are you willing to address my questions about how is channeling which god?
The medieval-net.
Pogo, How many times do we need to remind people of Communist carnage??
Isaac, Click on the links for chrissake! And, these are the guys Obama helped put into power in Egypt. Your Obama chubby is showing.
Funny Jill, until I remember that atheists killed 100 million people in the 20th century alone.
And atheists have their own blasphemy codes, depending on whether they are communists, socialists or libertarians.
So an all powerful, all knowing, all good god has to make certain his servants punish anyone who questions how good he is? O.K. well, that all makes sense now! Certainly a human father ought to turn on his son in the name of god. That’s in the bible so it must be a great idea.
Who is channeling god in the courtroom? Which god/dess will be channeled today? Are there credentials for channeling? Do channels and credentials vary by religion? They seem to, because blasphemy apparently depends on whatever the dominant religion of the culture says it is. Why it almost makes me think that human beings are responsible for making up their god!
We call Facebook : uttBay book. Only chumps go on Facebook and open themselves up for criminal prosecution in Egypt. We members of the 8th Day Dog Adventists have another book. It’s name is: Dog To Thee. You can get it on Amazon.
Egypt is indeed East of Corfu. The Ten Commandments Don’t Apply. It is a civilized nation state but falls into the lower echelon of nation states with severe problems. Nigeria on the other hand is a pure pirate territory. With a pirate territory you can fly over and flush anywhere. With a place like Egypt you do not want to flush on shrines or tourist boats on the Nile. Or on the pyramids. Or on Dome of the Mosque. Sinai is almost pure pirate territory. Gaza, which is no man’s land and certainly not women’s land, is not safe to fly over in order to flush. It would be good if Egypt were to invade Gaza and expel and kill off Hamas. Egypt and Hamas are far apart in their radical Islam and other disorders. Drugs wont cure it. Don’t even ask your doctor.
Paul
Give him a 1000 rashers.
Turley
You keep referring to Obama’s attempt at creating a blasphemy code or whatnot. Please elaborate with specifics and actual wording. If Obama called for restraint in denigrating religion, even specifically Islam then that is one thing. If Obama is actually working on laws or infringements to free speech, then that is another. What there should and shouldn’t be is a matter of opinion, perhaps our greatest over all freedom, the freedom of opinion. Most people would agree that it would be better to show some restraint and not go around setting Korans on fire, but he freedom of speech, no matter how ill conceived, must remain intact. However, we do differentiate between yelling fire in a crowded theatre and advising a mob to burn the town down, and inciting a mob to riot, and so on.
It’s all about the line or the slippery slope as you call it.
There seems to be massive fear among religionists that the world will end if their religion is diminished. Perhaps they are frightened because their religion – the thoughts in their heads about a protector and an afterlife are all that they can depend on. They certainly have no protection from a rational legal system, a social safety net, competent health care or education systems. One doesn’t give up easily, the only thing one can rely upon. Prosperity reduces the need for religion.
This is where the 1000 lashes would be more appropriate.